What if we make it illegal to own more than 2 residential properties. Yes, 2. Why 2? Because it won’t pull votes away from assholes with a summer house.
AND let’s make it illegal for corporate entities to own livable units, and force them to sell via eminent domain within 180 days.
Don’t make it illegal. Make it unprofitable.
Increasing taxes per property owned.
On 3+ extra taxes and huge fine if not rented for more than 3 months of the year.
We have an issue with comapnies and foreigners apparently buying property in cities then leaving them empty. Tax them HARD.
Much more likely to pass a plan like that then just making things illegal.
Nah, illegal, and a fire sale.
so just to be clear, does this mean two apartment properties, two buildings, or two units?
I’d say two thingies that can fit a single household each. So no, a hotel or an apartment complex wouldn’t count.
In some areas there’s nothing but plexes available. I’d say one plex=one property. Even if it has multiple units.
Then these shouldn’t be privately owned as a whole, wasn’t it the OP’s point?
There is some advantages to renting sometimes. I don’t think all properties should be for ownership only.
If you have to stay somewhere temporarily for a few years and intend on eventually moving, maybe you don’t want to go through all the hassle of buying a property. Renting is a simpler solution.
Or if you don’t want to be responsible for your residence, its maintenance, fees, taxes, etc. and rather let someone else take care of it, you can rent and let the landlord take care of everything.
Of course, capitalism and greed completely fucked up the whole system. Without strong regulation, there’s going to be abuses by anyone driven by greed.
Not all landlords are rat bastards. Some actually do care about their tenants and their well being and comfort. Just as there are tenants who just wreck everything in their residence and make a living hell for their neighbors and landlord.
I’ve been on both sides. I rented for nearly 10 years and had to deal with an asshole landlord at the beginning. The new landlord kept my rent the same for 8 years because she didn’t want to lose me since I was a good tenant who took care of my home. When my girlfriend and I finally moved in together, she kept her condi and decided to rent it in case our relationship didn’t work out after moving in together. And she’s had some awful tenants who destroyed her place. Right now she has good tenants and we’re doing our best to provide them a comfortable living space while being fair. We’re not looking to make profit off the tenants. Hell she’s even renting lower than what it actually costs to keep the place! Losing a couple of thousands per year on taxes and condo fees and replacing furniture when it breaks.
But, I gotta say, the rental market is plagued with greedy sociopaths and it’s hard to feel any sympathy towards any landlord.
You can still live on a property you don’t own without having a landlord. Housing cooperatives are a collective ownership of the property where you elect a property management board from the residents and pay a membership due for living there. There is no profit or excessive rent because it’s all money that belongs to you collectively.
Have you ever lived on a co-op?
In a co-op, you are a partial owner of the property. You still have to go through all the hurdles to get a mortgage, but it’s not difficult. Plus you have to deal with the risk of other co-op members defaulting on their loan. And you still have to participate in the maintenance and responsibilities. It’s not as simple as just renting a place.
https://www.ratehub.ca/blog/the-pros-and-cons-of-buying-a-co-op-property/
The politicians to make such a law probably have at least 3 residential properties. One regular home in their state, one close their job in Washington and one for recreation.
Anyway it wouldn’t solve the issue. It would likely just create an illegal market.
Like that time John McCain couldn’t remember how many houses he owned…
That was fun.
Maybe he just didn’t want to disclose the house where his mistress lived.
The one in Washington DC is rented and paid for by taxpayers. It’s part of the perks of being a politician.
Are you sure about that? If that’s true, it’s very new:
Under the new system, lawmakers can get reimbursed for hotel stays as well as utilities and insurance for property rented or owned in the capital. Members who bought property will not be able to claim reimbursement for principal or interest on their mortgage, but rental costs will be eligible to claim. The daily rate is capped at between $172 and $258, depending on the month.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/07/house-finalizes-expenses-plan-00090806
Ah ok. I might be wrong then. Normally politicians get a rental unit to live in near their place of government.
Wait - are you canceling hotels?
No, you can still own ONE hotel. The reason why hotel prices are so high in the US is because of the Patel Cartel.
The Patel Hotel Cartel? Do tell.
They own a bunch of chain hotels (Best Western?), and fix prices. The US has among the highest rates for hotels in the developed world. I recently went to Germany and for the same price I got 4 star amenities for what I’d pay for a very basic motel.
Free market won’t allow for that.
That’s why they are suggesting we regulate it.
Lol so he just set a bar that property managers will meet every year. 5% is crazy because that’s far outside what the average person sees in wage increases. Cap it at 2% or less if you want to help. And pass a federal renters bill of rights. And create a Poland esq public housing program so government can actually act as a counter balance to the private market.
Biden and gifts to corporations wrapped as progressive policy.
Name a more iconic duo.
Bjden and not stepping down?
Obama and the ACA
Iirc we lost the public option because of Congress, not Obama.
R’s will kill this and continue to blame D’s for high rent prices. same as they did with gas. same as they did with the border. republican voters are just that fucking dumb
Sounds like a good reason to get to the polls and cancel out as many of their votes as possible
It is something good but he will need to get more aggressive than that to fix issues with rent/housing.
Housing is so fucked it literally cannot be fixed just by the president, any president. We need laws, we need zoning, we need judicial protections for renters, we need private companies increasing supply… But yes: we also need this cap on rent increases. It’s a start!
Let me tell you why this will never, ever happen. Ever.
Private companies increasing supply is supposed to be the goal. But the side effect is basic supply and demand; as the supply increases, demand decreases. When demand decreases, prices fall. When the value of people’s homes fall, they go underwater. This leads to a lot of homeowners who were on solid financial footing when they purchased the property suddenly facing financial ruin.
You will never, ever get homeowners to vote in favor of something that will put them in serious financial risk. You will never, ever get landlords, corporate or private, to vote away their primary source of income. And in the medium to long term, you would be putting the financial stability of millions of homeowners at risk if this were to become a thing, along with risking collapsing the housing market entirely via oversupply.
I’m not saying what side is right or wrong, morally, ethically, etc. I’m just pointing out the realities of the situation and what is the most likely result. I don’t claim to know what the solution to the problem is, but I do know that this isn’t it, and is likely to cause more problems than it solves over the long term.
Boy, it’s a real pity you didn’t do this before 2023.
That said, if they manage to craft legislation, the Supremes will torpedo it in a hot minute, as soon as the cheque clears or the RV is delivered.
Give us an annual 5% pay raise then. wtf?
Burying the lede:
But the plan would require solid Democratic control of Congress to become law.
That’s going to apply to pretty much any good legislation for the foreseeable future. The GOP isnt interested in governing whatsoever. People need to understand that if they want shit to even have a chance of getting done they’re gonna have to vote (at a minimum).
Yup. The “O” in GOP stands for “Obstruct”. The GOP has been focused on breaking the government from the inside, so they can then point at it and say nothing works and it should all be privatized instead.
And if we have it…
Biden will once again make an announcement that as defacto party leader there’s no way he can change anyone’s mind and we’re idiots for expecting him to try
This is just a soft rent control which isn’t going to increase the supply of housing.
We don’t need this, we need to tax the fuck out of secondary residences and short term rentals.
Ah yes a half assed solution
If you really want a one-liner like this just tax empty units with some function (exponential, linear, logarithmic, whatever you want) with the listing price.
And of course you’d need stuff regulating what is an empty unit and punishing misreporting, only allowing leases at that price, etc. But it’s simple as an idea.
This will be one of his first changes to get reversed if he’s replaced by Trump.
There’s nothing to reverse, he’s just called for Congress to pass a law doing this
And arguably there won’t be anything to reverse in the future. Even attempting this, it’d be blocked by the republican controlled house.
The sentiment is nice though. My worry is they knows it’s only sentiment, cause they know it would never pass. I’m cynical.
True. But I’ll take words over nothing. At least it’s some acknowledgment that some thing ought to be done.
How about set that cap at 1/4 average monthly wages for a state or county or even a city.
That wouldn’t work because some housing is much more expensive than others. It might have more rooms. It might be better built. It might be newer. At least a 5% increase cap would scale with all of those things more appropriately.
I’m sure there would have to some modifiers but it would work.
Could have used this like 10 years ago
deleted by creator
what about the minimum wage being stuck at $7.25? some wait staff make half that still
Biden is just throwing crumbs around like some elder on a park bench feeding pigeons
Ah yes. Let’s the this other thing that’s not related restrict our ability to move forward.
Don’t let perfection stand in the way of progress.
$15 an hour would be considered progress not perfection
when has the US moved forward more than a baby step if that in the last half century? and we just lost most of that progress we did make in the last fifteen years
That wasn’t my point. The point is to not let lack of progress in one area detract from progress in another. I agree that the minimum wage is way too low, but that shouldn’t influence an attempt to cap rent increases.
Obviously, both is better, but 1 is still progress and better than 0. If we don’t celebrate progress, we’ll never get better.
There has been no progress, wages have been too low for decades, housing is out of control, and all we get are table scraps
There’s an argument to be made that you need rent control before mandating any wage increases otherwise landlords will just raise rent since they know you have the money. Same argument can be said for UBI, it’ll just be a $1000 a month gift to landlords. If you maintain capitals control over setting prices any increase in income will be gobbled up by them as they raise prices and increase profits.
You need to squeeze capital from both sides, price controls and wage increases, for redistribution to be effective. Otherwise they’ll compensate for losses on one side by increasing/decreasing the other.
You can’t outsmart supply and demand, period. No government ever has or ever will. Rent control doesn’t work, every economist agrees.
Rent control privileges existing tenants over new ones and doesn’t fix the supply problem. It incentivizes landlords to constructively evict tenants so they can re-rent at market rate instead of capped rate. Boneheaded policy which makes dems look bad. Voting for Biden but this is a dumb look.
